I've seen this pop up several times today. It seems that the Obama administration is about to release new federal emission and fuel efficiency goals. The plan: CAFE goes up 5% per year to 35.5 mpg by 2016 Emission decrease by 30% by 2016 Projected cost is $1300 per car The feds, states (including California) and the automakers seem to be in agreement that one national standard is needed. LINK: Obama to tap consumers for emission, mpg standards
Detroit Free Press has a little more detail, background and analysis: Obama's 35.5-m.p.g. deal may be a game-changer | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press "Under the pact, new federal rules would increase current mileage standards 5% annually to 39 m.p.g. for cars and 30 m.p.g. for light trucks in model year 2016, said a senior administration official. Current standards require new cars to average 27.5 m.p.g. and new trucks to get 23.1 m.p.g."
It may be the beginning of a unified regulation for mpg, but its not the "death" of CARB - CARB does a lot of work on stationary sources of emissions, ag activities, diesel regulations, air quality monitoring, etc. Subject Top Page: A - Z Index of All Top Level Programs / Topics
Yes, they're quite involved with Marine/Port emissions as well. This is excellent news and I'm quite glad to see that a compromised was reached. It's about time we got to where Europe and Japan were 10 years ago.
OK OK my thread title was a bit of a stretch. I'm aware that CARB is involved with much more than auto regulations. However, I do find it interesting that CARB and the EPA seem to have agreed on a common goal for fuel economy and emissions. I do wonder what emissions they going to reduce. To me it seems a bit too convenient that both fuel consumption and emissions will be reduced by 30%. I suspect that the 30% reduction in emissions referring to CO2 not the currently regulated pollutants (CO, HC, PM, NOx, HCHO)
Why is this "too convenient"? If you're using less gasoline per unit of distance, it makes sense that you're going to emit less per unit of distance, no?
I think this is preferable to the last administration where the EPA and CARB were adversaries. I caught a little bit about this on NPR this morning - apparently CARB would like to phase in the regulations sooner than the proposed Federal plan and they may still try to get permission to do so.
Under the compromise, the federal government would establish two sets of standards, one for mileage and one for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide. The Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would set the new fuel-economy standards, which would raise the average fuel efficiency of a new car by 30 percent. Cars, for instance, would need to average 39 miles per gallon by 2016, while light trucks would need to reach 30 mpg. The EPA, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, plans a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA needs to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect. One person involved in the negotiation said the Supreme Court's ruling on regulating emissions helped push companies to bargain because they feared the prospect of having to comply with separate EPA standards in addition to those from NHTSA and California. "That's what brought the companies to the table," the person said. Obama Announces First Nationwide Regulation of Greenhouse Gases - washingtonpost.com
When I think emissions it think of those that are currently regulated by CARB and the EPA. These are: HC, CO, PM, HCHO, and NOx. You can use less fuel and still emit large amounts of these pollutants. I showed this in another thread by comparing a 2009 Suburban to a 2009 1300cc Honda motorcycle. The motorcycle used far less fuel but emitted 10X more pollution than the Suburban. One the other hand fuel economy and CO2 go hand in hand. You cannot reduce one without reducing the other. A mandate to reduce average fleet CO2 is a mandate to reduce CAFE by another name.
